Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 251. (Read 3314350 times)
I'll admit it. I've woken up to better-looking charts.
Ffs... Is the Dash vs Monero thing still alive? I think it has been proven that all negative said about Monero was all FUD and nonesense. I even fell for it back in the day when it was under 5 bucks. 5 BUCKS! I would have held starting back then if only I knew better instead trading in and out of it.
Also we all knew the coin was in early development and we patiently awaited more amazing features which actually materialised not just empty promises.
We are the early adopters its open source there were no secrets.
We are the early adopters its open source there were no secrets.
Optional Fungability will never keep you safe.
I hear this a lot but it's an absolutely unsubstantiated claim.
We have several other strong privacy coins which, unlike Monero, have never been severely broken.
Remember that before the last network update most transactions are able to be linked and traced. The issues may have been fixed for new transactions but it leaves a big fat scar on the reputation of Monero and it's users over the past years are still at risk from their past transactions. Or as Spagni likes to say to discredit privacy altcoins "lives could be at stake here."
Take ZCash, Dash or Pivx. They may not be private by default, but none of their private transactions have ever been linked or or traced.
It would seem mandatory fungibility didn't help Monero one bit in the past.
There are many papers claiming that optional private transactions cant make coin fungible.
I do not believe there was anyone that broke Monero privacy. If you know anyone I can make an transaction that he will unveil and made it transparent for everyone to see. I do believe this is impossible since theory says so.
On other hand theory and researches claim the opposite for the other coins you mention and main reason is their optional privacy. You need to understand that blockchain analysis will improve with huge leaps and soon many will be able to prove this theory with a click. Monero also had optional privacy until 2016. Luckily blockchain analysis was not so advanced back then to worry anyone.
That's a good joke... https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.04299/
I recommend you read it thoroughly, because the implications are quite serious. Much of it has recently been improved upon, but the issues are not completely resolved and implications of transactions up to 2017 will haunt users for a long time i suspect...
Until 2017 Monero had optional privacy, since you could use Ring size 0. So you could basically chose to use private transactions or transparent. That is how Monero was from launch in 2014. And this paper you posted is just one of the papers that explain us in theory how optional privacy dont work. There are many such papers. Some were made in Monero Research Lab in 2014. Optional privacy is not real privacy and already is or will be broken in practice.
Nothing will hunt any user unless ignorant. Everyone that used Monero in 2014-2016 and read those Monero research papers, or read this forum, should know that optional privacy Monero had dont give him 100% privacy. Same as anyone that used DASH from 2014 till now should know this fact. That his transaction ( although he chose to be private) can be right now or will with advanced block chain analysis made totally transparent.
But also anyone that used Monero in 2014-2016 should knew that using Monero gives him best chances to have private transaction.
Nice twisting of the facts.
The 0-mixin transactions compromised the transactions that had to be private as they were selected as mixin outputs for the ring. Meaning that all default private transactions were not private at all because people were using 0-mixin. This is a vulnerability no matter how you twist it.
0-mixin should never have been allowed to be selected as mixin in the first place. How development could have missed that simple logic eludes me completely.
Hello. You can read that in 2014 MRL papers and in this thread from 2014. All transactions has to be private to have good anonymity. Using ring size 0 was not perfect but was how Monero was build in 2014 and released by thakful for today. This was a feature not an bug or vulnerability from 2014-2016 and such feature is still in DASH and ZCash.
Exactly. Development didn't "miss" it. Development (if by which he means Monero development, and not the original Bytecoin scammers, who BTW share with Zcash the record of having pushed out an unsafe and not-ready-for-prime-time system as a money grab) were the ones who discovered it, characterized it mathematically, published it, and immediately put a minimum mix hard fork on the roadmap.
There was a system for cloud mining for Monero. It could be MinerGate. Does anyone use it? How much do they earn? Can they provide information?
Minergate is considered a scammy pool.
There was a system for cloud mining for Monero. It could be MinerGate. Does anyone use it? How much do they earn? Can they provide information?
Optional Fungability will never keep you safe.
I hear this a lot but it's an absolutely unsubstantiated claim.
We have several other strong privacy coins which, unlike Monero, have never been severely broken.
Remember that before the last network update most transactions are able to be linked and traced. The issues may have been fixed for new transactions but it leaves a big fat scar on the reputation of Monero and it's users over the past years are still at risk from their past transactions. Or as Spagni likes to say to discredit privacy altcoins "lives could be at stake here."
Take ZCash, Dash or Pivx. They may not be private by default, but none of their private transactions have ever been linked or or traced.
It would seem mandatory fungibility didn't help Monero one bit in the past.
There are many papers claiming that optional private transactions cant make coin fungible.
I do not believe there was anyone that broke Monero privacy. If you know anyone I can make an transaction that he will unveil and made it transparent for everyone to see. I do believe this is impossible since theory says so.
On other hand theory and researches claim the opposite for the other coins you mention and main reason is their optional privacy. You need to understand that blockchain analysis will improve with huge leaps and soon many will be able to prove this theory with a click. Monero also had optional privacy until 2016. Luckily blockchain analysis was not so advanced back then to worry anyone.
That's a good joke... https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.04299/
I recommend you read it thoroughly, because the implications are quite serious. Much of it has recently been improved upon, but the issues are not completely resolved and implications of transactions up to 2017 will haunt users for a long time i suspect...
Until 2017 Monero had optional privacy, since you could use Ring size 0. So you could basically chose to use private transactions or transparent. That is how Monero was from launch in 2014. And this paper you posted is just one of the papers that explain us in theory how optional privacy dont work. There are many such papers. Some were made in Monero Research Lab in 2014. Optional privacy is not real privacy and already is or will be broken in practice.
Nothing will hunt any user unless ignorant. Everyone that used Monero in 2014-2016 and read those Monero research papers, or read this forum, should know that optional privacy Monero had dont give him 100% privacy. Same as anyone that used DASH from 2014 till now should know this fact. That his transaction ( although he chose to be private) can be right now or will with advanced block chain analysis made totally transparent.
But also anyone that used Monero in 2014-2016 should knew that using Monero gives him best chances to have private transaction.
Nice twisting of the facts.
The 0-mixin transactions compromised the transactions that had to be private as they were selected as mixin outputs for the ring. Meaning that all default private transactions were not private at all because people were using 0-mixin. This is a vulnerability no matter how you twist it.
0-mixin should never have been allowed to be selected as mixin in the first place. How development could have missed that simple logic eludes me completely.
Hello. You can read that in 2014 MRL papers and in this thread from 2014. All transactions has to be private to have good anonymity. Using ring size 0 was not perfect but was how Monero was build in 2014 and released by thakful for today. This was a feature not an bug or vulnerability from 2014-2016 and such feature is still in DASH and ZCash.
Optional Fungability will never keep you safe.
I hear this a lot but it's an absolutely unsubstantiated claim.
We have several other strong privacy coins which, unlike Monero, have never been severely broken.
Remember that before the last network update most transactions are able to be linked and traced. The issues may have been fixed for new transactions but it leaves a big fat scar on the reputation of Monero and it's users over the past years are still at risk from their past transactions. Or as Spagni likes to say to discredit privacy altcoins "lives could be at stake here."
Take ZCash, Dash or Pivx. They may not be private by default, but none of their private transactions have ever been linked or or traced.
It would seem mandatory fungibility didn't help Monero one bit in the past.
There are many papers claiming that optional private transactions cant make coin fungible.
I do not believe there was anyone that broke Monero privacy. If you know anyone I can make an transaction that he will unveil and made it transparent for everyone to see. I do believe this is impossible since theory says so.
On other hand theory and researches claim the opposite for the other coins you mention and main reason is their optional privacy. You need to understand that blockchain analysis will improve with huge leaps and soon many will be able to prove this theory with a click. Monero also had optional privacy until 2016. Luckily blockchain analysis was not so advanced back then to worry anyone.
That's a good joke... https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.04299/
I recommend you read it thoroughly, because the implications are quite serious. Much of it has recently been improved upon, but the issues are not completely resolved and implications of transactions up to 2017 will haunt users for a long time i suspect...
Until 2017 Monero had optional privacy, since you could use Ring size 0. So you could basically chose to use private transactions or transparent. That is how Monero was from launch in 2014. And this paper you posted is just one of the papers that explain us in theory how optional privacy dont work. There are many such papers. Some were made in Monero Research Lab in 2014. Optional privacy is not real privacy and already is or will be broken in practice.
Nothing will hunt any user unless ignorant. Everyone that used Monero in 2014-2016 and read those Monero research papers, or read this forum, should know that optional privacy Monero had dont give him 100% privacy. Same as anyone that used DASH from 2014 till now should know this fact. That his transaction ( although he chose to be private) can be right now or will with advanced block chain analysis made totally transparent.
But also anyone that used Monero in 2014-2016 should knew that using Monero gives him best chances to have private transaction.
Nice twisting of the facts.
The 0-mixin transactions compromised the transactions that had to be private as they were selected as mixin outputs for the ring. Meaning that all default private transactions were not private at all because people were using 0-mixin. This is a vulnerability no matter how you twist it.
0-mixin should never have been allowed to be selected as mixin in the first place. How development could have missed that simple logic eludes me completely.
That's a good joke... https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.04299/
I recommend you read it thoroughly, because the implications are quite serious. Much of it has recently been improved upon, but the issues are not completely resolved and implications of transactions up to 2017 will haunt users for a long time i suspect...
Quote
Andrew Miller is supported in part by the Initia-
tive for Cryptocurrencies and Contracts, and is a board
member of the Zcash Foundation.
tive for Cryptocurrencies and Contracts, and is a board
member of the Zcash Foundation.
Umm yeah so...
I especially like how they conclude that 25% of all transactions are of a malicious nature yet have no proof whatsoever? did they pull that out of their ass or was 26% sounding too high?
BTW, how has that Trusted setup system in Zcrap been working out for you guys?
Optional Fungability will never keep you safe.
I hear this a lot but it's an absolutely unsubstantiated claim.
We have several other strong privacy coins which, unlike Monero, have never been severely broken.
Remember that before the last network update most transactions are able to be linked and traced. The issues may have been fixed for new transactions but it leaves a big fat scar on the reputation of Monero and it's users over the past years are still at risk from their past transactions. Or as Spagni likes to say to discredit privacy altcoins "lives could be at stake here."
Take ZCash, Dash or Pivx. They may not be private by default, but none of their private transactions have ever been linked or or traced.
It would seem mandatory fungibility didn't help Monero one bit in the past.
There are many papers claiming that optional private transactions cant make coin fungible.
I do not believe there was anyone that broke Monero privacy. If you know anyone I can make an transaction that he will unveil and made it transparent for everyone to see. I do believe this is impossible since theory says so.
On other hand theory and researches claim the opposite for the other coins you mention and main reason is their optional privacy. You need to understand that blockchain analysis will improve with huge leaps and soon many will be able to prove this theory with a click. Monero also had optional privacy until 2016. Luckily blockchain analysis was not so advanced back then to worry anyone.
That's a good joke... https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.04299/
I recommend you read it thoroughly, because the implications are quite serious. Much of it has recently been improved upon, but the issues are not completely resolved and implications of transactions up to 2017 will haunt users for a long time i suspect...
Until 2017 Monero had optional privacy, since you could use Ring size 0. So you could basically chose to use private transactions or transparent. That is how Monero was from launch in 2014. And this paper you posted is just one of the papers that explain us in theory how optional privacy dont work. There are many such papers. Some were made in Monero Research Lab in 2014. Optional privacy is not real privacy and already is or will be broken in practice.
Nothing will hunt any user unless ignorant. Everyone that used Monero in 2014-2016 and read those Monero research papers, or read this forum, should know that optional privacy Monero had dont give him 100% privacy. Same as anyone that used DASH from 2014 till now should know this fact. That his transaction ( although he chose to be private) can be right now or will with advanced block chain analysis made totally transparent.
But also anyone that used Monero in 2014-2016 should knew that using Monero gives him best chances to have private transaction.
Take ZCash, Dash or Pivx. They may not be private by default, but none of their private transactions have ever been linked or or traced.
lolz
http://zcashlink.com
https://smeiklej.com/files/usenix18.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.02489.pdf
Right, i dont't know about ZCash, but the one about Dash has been thoroughly debunked and has not been shown to work on the real network and most likely doesn't.
"thoroughly debunked"
Please show a similarly serious and rigorous scientific paper which does so. If not then it is just a bunch of nonsense shilling from bag holders. Indeed I remember seeing a comment from an actual Dash developer (not idiot community shills) stating that it was in fact a valid attack.
All of the above basically devolve to the same overall flaw and methods which is optional privacy not working because of too little usage in practice and information leakage from the transparent transactions leaking into the private ones. They apply to any coin with a similar approach, including small ones that nobody bothers writing papers about.
Take ZCash, Dash or Pivx. They may not be private by default, but none of their private transactions have ever been linked or or traced.
lolz
http://zcashlink.com
https://smeiklej.com/files/usenix18.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.02489.pdf
Right, i dont't know about ZCash, but the one about Dash has been thoroughly debunked and has not been shown to work on the real network and most likely doesn't.
Take ZCash, Dash or Pivx. They may not be private by default, but none of their private transactions have ever been linked or or traced.
lolz
http://zcashlink.com
https://smeiklej.com/files/usenix18.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.02489.pdf
Optional Fungability will never keep you safe.
I hear this a lot but it's an absolutely unsubstantiated claim.
We have several other strong privacy coins which, unlike Monero, have never been severely broken.
Remember that before the last network update most transactions are able to be linked and traced. The issues may have been fixed for new transactions but it leaves a big fat scar on the reputation of Monero and it's users over the past years are still at risk from their past transactions. Or as Spagni likes to say to discredit privacy altcoins "lives could be at stake here."
Take ZCash, Dash or Pivx. They may not be private by default, but none of their private transactions have ever been linked or or traced.
It would seem mandatory fungibility didn't help Monero one bit in the past.
There are many papers claiming that optional private transactions cant make coin fungible.
I do not believe there was anyone that broke Monero privacy. If you know anyone I can make an transaction that he will unveil and made it transparent for everyone to see. I do believe this is impossible since theory says so.
On other hand theory and researches claim the opposite for the other coins you mention and main reason is their optional privacy. You need to understand that blockchain analysis will improve with huge leaps and soon many will be able to prove this theory with a click. Monero also had optional privacy until 2016. Luckily blockchain analysis was not so advanced back then to worry anyone.
That's a good joke... https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.04299/
I recommend you read it thoroughly, because the implications are quite serious. Much of it has recently been improved upon, but the issues are not completely resolved and implications of transactions up to 2017 will haunt users for a long time i suspect...
You short bro
Like clock work, he shows up when the sellers are getting exhausted and we are about to reverse. The bottom is near.My favorite aspect of this particular troll is the obvious naming scheme for his sock puppets. Doesn't have an ounce of creativity. At least this troll speaks native English so he spouts grammatically correct non-sense. I find the ESL trolls a bit sad.
Optional Fungability will never keep you safe.
I hear this a lot but it's an absolutely unsubstantiated claim.
We have several other strong privacy coins which, unlike Monero, have never been severely broken.
Remember that before the last network update most transactions are able to be linked and traced. The issues may have been fixed for new transactions but it leaves a big fat scar on the reputation of Monero and it's users over the past years are still at risk from their past transactions. Or as Spagni likes to say to discredit privacy altcoins "lives could be at stake here."
Take ZCash, Dash or Pivx. They may not be private by default, but none of their private transactions have ever been linked or or traced.
It would seem mandatory fungibility didn't help Monero one bit in the past.
There are many papers claiming that optional private transactions cant make coin fungible.
I do not believe there was anyone that broke Monero privacy. If you know anyone I can make an transaction that he will unveil and made it transparent for everyone to see. I do believe this is impossible since theory says so.
On other hand theory and researches claim the opposite for the other coins you mention and main reason is their optional privacy. You need to understand that blockchain analysis will improve with huge leaps and soon many will be able to prove this theory with a click. Monero also had optional privacy until 2016. Luckily blockchain analysis was not so advanced back then to worry anyone.
That's a good joke... https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.04299/
I recommend you read it thoroughly, because the implications are quite serious. Much of it has recently been improved upon, but the issues are not completely resolved and implications of transactions up to 2017 will haunt users for a long time i suspect...
Optional Fungability will never keep you safe.
I hear this a lot but it's an absolutely unsubstantiated claim.
We have several other strong privacy coins which, unlike Monero, have never been severely broken.
Remember that before the last network update most transactions are able to be linked and traced. The issues may have been fixed for new transactions but it leaves a big fat scar on the reputation of Monero and it's users over the past years are still at risk from their past transactions. Or as Spagni likes to say to discredit privacy altcoins "lives could be at stake here."
Take ZCash, Dash or Pivx. They may not be private by default, but none of their private transactions have ever been linked or or traced.
It would seem mandatory fungibility didn't help Monero one bit in the past.
There are many papers claiming that optional private transactions cant make coin fungible.
I do not believe there was anyone that broke Monero privacy. If you know anyone I can make an transaction that he will unveil and made it transparent for everyone to see. I do believe this is impossible since theory says so.
On other hand theory and researches claim the opposite for the other coins you mention and main reason is their optional privacy. You need to understand that blockchain analysis will improve with huge leaps and soon many will be able to prove this theory with a click. Monero also had optional privacy until 2016. Luckily blockchain analysis was not so advanced back then to worry anyone.
Optional Fungability will never keep you safe.
I hear this a lot but it's an absolutely unsubstantiated claim.
We have several other strong privacy coins which, unlike Monero, have never been severely broken.
Remember that before the last network update most transactions are able to be linked and traced. The issues may have been fixed for new transactions but it leaves a big fat scar on the reputation of Monero and it's users over the past years are still at risk from their past transactions. Or as Spagni likes to say to discredit privacy altcoins "lives could be at stake here."
Take ZCash, Dash or Pivx. They may not be private by default, but none of their private transactions have ever been linked or or traced.
It would seem mandatory fungibility didn't help Monero one bit in the past.
Spagni also commented that some of the problems in the protocol are impossible to solve, this is just unacceptable if you want to be safe, we need to think of other methods to actually make it secure and not have stuff in there that 'is safe, for now...' while keeping in mind that the blockchain will remember our transaction history for a very long time.
Contrarian indicator in.
Optional Fungability will never keep you safe.
I hear this a lot but it's an absolutely unsubstantiated claim.
We have several other strong privacy coins which, unlike Monero, have never been severely broken.
Remember that before the last network update most transactions are able to be linked and traced. The issues may have been fixed for new transactions but it leaves a big fat scar on the reputation of Monero and it's users over the past years are still at risk from their past transactions. Or as Spagni likes to say to discredit privacy altcoins "lives could be at stake here."
Take ZCash, Dash or Pivx. They may not be private by default, but none of their private transactions have ever been linked or or traced.
It would seem mandatory fungibility didn't help Monero one bit in the past.
Spagni also commented that some of the problems in the protocol are impossible to solve, this is just unacceptable if you want to be safe, we need to think of other methods to actually make it secure and not have stuff in there that 'is safe, for now...' while keeping in mind that the blockchain will remember our transaction history for a very long time.
whats the best monero wallet at the moment?
On iOS it's MyMonero or CakeWallet.
On Android it's Monerujo
On everything else the Core wallet or Ledger.
Jump to: